What I think most people are confusing II for is an old SR2 spell called Disregard.

Basically, it works like this:

You're visible. People just don't care.

So you walk up to Guard A and cut him in half.

Guard B: Oh drek! Joe just got cut in half!
*Guard B holds a moment of silence*
Guard B: Oh well.

You then cut Guard B in half.

Now, if the guard managed to succeed in his "caring" test, he sees you and reacts accordingly. Otherwise, well, the above situation applies.

That, right there, is a game-breaking spell. You can walk right up to most major players and shoot them on the streets. Most people will go "Oh no" and promptly do nothing.

This spell has nothing to do with photons or light in any way, shape, or form. It's directly manipulating the target's perceptions.

It's an illusion creating the visual perception that no one is there. Anything relating to seeing the subject is rendered null and void by the spell. *Any* other evidence, however -- sound, smell, touch, and even taste if you go around licking the air around you -- will reveal the subject just fine. But anything relating to you seeing the subject is directly manipulated in your mind so that you simply do *not* see them. Unless, of course, you make your Spell Resistance Test.

If you pick up some other indicator that the subject is there -- by using one of your other senses or having someone else who defeated the spell telling you so -- you can react normally (albeit with the +8 blind fire-type modifier). But even if you tried to throw a bucket of paint in the air, you're going to see it land in a way that's most plausible to your brain evne though the subject may, indeed, have been splattered and everyone else (who resisted the spell) sees the real result.

If you want to play it otherwise in your game, that's totally groovy. But by canon, it's a mind-affecting illusion (a completely fabricated perception) that erases the subject from being seen in any way, shape, or form. But that's *all* it does, too.

Now if the subject does something like attack some guy, you're going to see that guy bleeding and reacting to the invisible subject's attack. But even if some of his blood splattered all over the subject, you would just see it hit the floor or wall in exactly the way your mind would have expected it to. At least now, however, you have that hint that something awry is going on and can react appropriately. *That* is indirect evidence.

I dont think any of us are actually getting the two confused, tanka. You're right, though, that *is* a game breaking spell.

Kanada Ten: You see, thats the thing. I dont think the spell deals with photons at all. It doesn't create them, manipulate them, or track them. It doesnt need to, it's directly affecting with the brain (or microchip) of those trying to percieve the subject.

Another angle: It would be far, far easier to design a spell that simply blacked out your ability to notice someone until you get a non-visual indication that they are present than a spell that somehow plots the theoretical trajectories of all incomming photons in real time and assembles an image for the perciever based on those trillions of calculations. As such, the easier version of the spell, which also happens to be the more effective version, is the one that was designed first and propagated.

Edit: God DAMN these are some rapid responses...

Except that this "easier version of the spell" that you're insisting exists IS NOT THE SPELL DESCRIBED IN THE BOOK.

Improved Invisibility "makes the subject invisible to normal vision". It does not "eliminate any and all possible visual cues that could possibly hint at the subject's presence".

It doesnt need to. Remember Jaron K's post about the stroke victims? The spell makes it so you can not visually percieve the subject. Your brain creatively produces the remaining details to make the subject's non-presence make sense. Simple.

Note: this was intended as a reply to Kanada Ten, but works as a reply to John Campbell as well.

"Don't you see that giant troll standing there with a big fragging lead pipe?"
"Nope, I see a cake."

I think we made our points, but we disagree about an axiom of the spell (and I imagine Indirect Illusions in general); one can only go so far at that point.

Mmmmm. Cake.

Wow....this arguement has gotten hung up on some pretty interesting things.

um...Where I really see a problem is that people are basically trying to go at the spell from the angle that the Brain is effected, while others are going at it as if the Area is effected physically (which allows for the paint.)

The problem really resides in the author's complete lack of good communicational skills.

Look at the following back to back. They really just beg for a good amount of confusion and personal interpretation:
"Mana-based illusion spells affect the mind and are ineffective against technological viewing systems like cameras. Physical illusion spells create and actual sensory input and are effective against such systems."

"Mana illusions are resisted by Willpower, while physical illusions are resisted by Intelligence."

"Indirect illusion spells manipulate energy to create an illusionary image or sound or other sense-based effect, fooling the senses...All indirect illusions are resisted by intelligence."

"Invisibility affects the minds of viewers. Improved invisibility affects technological sensors as well."

Well...first we were told that Mana illusion spells are spells that effect the mind, like Invisibility does, and that they are resisted by Willpower, but then we are told that all Indirect illusion spells are resisted by Intelligence, even though Invisibility seems to fallow suit with being a Mana illusions spell affecting the mind and thus being resisted by Willpower.
Then we see that Improved invisibility is what would fall under Physical illusion spells and seem like it would properly be resisted by Intelligence since it's a physical illusion, but it says here that it casts this technological affect against "technological sensors" (like cameras...hmmm, that was listed above right?) "as well" as work as a Mana spell that affects the mind of the resister.

This is all messed up in there.
There's three different angles comming out of it.
1)
Mana = mind = Willpower
Physical = technology = Intelligence

2)
Indirect = energy = Intelligence

3)
Improved Invisibility = mind and technology = Intelligence

hmm....I see some things broken in the logic here, and it really didn't help anything to throw in this rather vague and no-mechanic discription:
"Indirect illusion spells manipulate energy..."

Really? How exactly, mr. athor, does this happen? I only know how the mind is altered into a partial or full sensory illusion via the mind, or how to create sensory input to fool technology like cameras via the physical.
Wait...there was more to that right? Oh yeah, there was...let's continue on that line.
"Indirect illusion spells manipulate energy to create an illusionary image or sound or sense-based effect, fooling the senses."

Oh right! Got it. So this wasn't accomplished back when you said:
"Single sense illusions affect only one sense. Full sensory illusions affect all senses." that are then divided into the two classes of mind and physical spells.

Wait...so...you created a whole new "energy" affecting side of Illusion so that all of it's spells can be resisted by Intelligence rather than pay heed to the previous mentioned rules regarding Mind and Technological versions of spells?

Oh...well...ok.
Thanks for the extra confusion.
Cheers!

All righty, let's try it this way. Let's say that Mr. Invisible happens to bump into a stack of books, causing it to topple onto him. Wouldn't you say that's a good indicator that someone is there?

Or my favorite-- let's say Mr. Invisible is dumb, and walks across a zen sand garden. Joe Guard can't see him, but I think we can all agree that his footprints would be visible. Or if Mr. Invisible sneezes, or coughs, or talks-- Joe Guard *will* discover someone is there.

The important thing to remember is that the effect of the spell remains the same. No matter what you use to detect someone's presence, you're still going to be at +8 TN to hit.

That's the part we're all getting caught up on. Any of the methods described may, at the GM's call, let you know someone invisible is in the area. That's not the same as "seeing them".

So what fills in the gaps? What creates the image of whatever is behind the invisible person? Is it the spell or is it the target's own mind? I would tend to think it is the mind. It is easier to tell the brain to fill in the gaps than it is to fill them in for the brain. Heck, we all do it constantly. Everyone has blind spots around 5 to 10 degrees to the outside of each eye's focal points. We never notice them because the brain fills in the gaps. This is all well and good, but what happens for video cameras. They are fooled, but they are not designed nor even capable of filling in the gaps, so it must be the spell that does so. In that case, I would think that a wet person or a painted person is "wearing" the water or paint, so spell would be easily able to compensate, but the splattered paint around the individual or the water that is no longer striking the surface of the ground etc. might very well be outside the scope of an invisibility spell. For example, at what point would footprints in the snow become visible? If we don't say they are visible from the outset because they are not an actual part of--they aren't worn by--the target, we get into a very big can of worms. Therefore I say that in addition to other senses, anything that isn't being carried or worn by the subject could tip off an observer enough to allow the +8 blind fire. Otherwise, if someone somehow knew someone was there but not where, they'd have to use suppressive fire in something like a 360 degree arc (or some such tactic).

For what it's worth, that's the way I see it.

Something I find useful in these situations is to take a step back from the intracisies of the rules for a moment. As Stumps pointed out in his long and complicated post, sometimes the text obscures more than it reveals. ("Like an illusion?" one might say, if one were an especially annoying pain in the ass.)

Invisibility (whether phys or mana) is an Illusion. Illusion spells do not create anything, alter anything or manipulate anything. Illusion spells, for lack of a better word, lie. Sometimes they lie and tell you something is there that isn't, sometimes they lie and tell you that something that isn't there is. (Illusion spells are a lot like my ex-girlfriend in that way. Except that she also created, altered and manipulated; so lets stay away from that for now.)

Interpreting the spell in this way (which is no more or less correct than anyone else's, its just the way it works in my games) means that an invisible man in the rain can still not be seen. Paint, when thrown, may give viewers a phase long glimpse of a form (I don't have a problem with that, and I like to encourage players when they try weird things, or at least not screw them for it), but the paint that sticks to the invisible person won't be seen. The chair that is thrown blindly will bounce off and break, and at least give the viewers a strong indication that there are invisible things about. (A chair soaked in paint will bounce off and break and the paint that sticks to the target will be invisible, and so on.) Footprints in the snow will be visible (unless its a phys ad with traceless walk, which is really the way to go with invisible people). All that gives you is a precise point to aim your blindfire (or your suppressive fire, or grenades, which is really the way to go when clearing out your invisible people problems).

When I say Invis fools the mind, I don't mean it's like a Jedi power. You may know the guy is there. You may hear him walking around. He may be saying, "Dude, I'm an invisible man. I'm about to get elbow deep in you." You may be able to state with absolute certainty that there is an invisible man right there. But your mind won't let you see him. Because Illusion spells lie.

I think one of the points I wanted to make never manifested itself.

Basically, it's this. You'll never see any direct evidence that the invisible subject is in the room. That includes him creating footprints, having paint splattered on him, or anything else along those lines. However, you will see indirect evidence... footprints he left behind when you weren't looking, missing paint blobs on the floor when you glance in that direction after looking away, and so on and so forth.

It's like 4 hermetics arguing about the physics of a powerbolt. Everyone comes in with their own prejudice and assumptions, which shape their view. Interestingly, according to the the text, every one of them is spot on right when it comes to explaining their own, but flat out wrong when talking about the others'.

By the books, the only consistant factor between "pay no attention to the mage with the Alpha," "perfect camoflage," "photon refraction," and "unresponsiveness to photons" are the intelligence test to overcome the spell and the +8 (+4 in melee) to any actions directed at an invisible individual who has been noticed by other senses.

..
[edited for relevance]

Seriously, though, H. of V. I think it's a valid question. Will indirect things like paint disappearing notify a character enough to allow him or her a quick burst/shot/whatever at +8, or does the spell nullify such indirect visual cues?

They should get an intelligence test to notice that something is wrong with the scenario. Whether your GM wants to make it a new test against the spell, or just a complex perception test should be linked to how the mage in question views the magic. I prefer making it a perception test to piece together little details (splash sound too early, pattern doesn't quite look natural, whatever) and realize there is an invisible mage, thus gaining the option to use blind fire.

Y'know... I hate to make this comparison (actually, I don't, but, yeah), but II seems a lot like the Somebody Else's Problem field from Hitchhiker's Guide.

Think about it.

It's there. But you don't notice it. It's just not your problem. So your mind skips it and fills it in with something more mundane and explainable.

The moment you know it's there, it's there in all its glory. Before that moment, though, it's just somebody else's problem.

Granted, it also describes Disregard a lot better than it does II, but Disregard doesn't exist in SR3 (save for as a custom spell or somesuch).

Not quite, you can know an invisible person is there and still not see it. The sound of footsteps on gravel is a give-away, but doesn't suddenly cancel the spell. With invisibility spells, you can be fully aware that there is an invisible intruder and still not be able to give a physical description.

On the other side, Somebody Else's Problem includes all senses to the extent that you can run into the obscured chartreuse bison and continue to pay no attention to it.

I could handle that as well.

No no no. Somebody has to disagree. There is no consensus! This is Dumpshock!

I disagree with your statement about an inability to have a consensus. You suck!

Ouch! Doc Funk. No smiley?

Smileys are overrated.

Perhaps, but I will re-evaluate my opinion of you if you give no indication of sarcasm, irony, or banter.

[edit]I realize that context should often be enough by itself, but "you suck" was an unexpected and somewhat off-putting addition to your otherwise witty repertee.[/edit]

Re-evaluate away ... it will have absolutely no effect on the Doc.

My re-evaluation is not intended to effect the good Doctor in any way. It is merely the reason I asked for clarification of his meaning. If he genuinely believes I suck for making a jest, I will react and speak differently to his posts. If he was being ironic, as I suspect, I will continue to joke freely in response to his posts.

I prefer to leave people guessing. It makes their responses more interesting.

I would take the context as he was being witty. "You suck" is often used among friends as a "you said something cool, I wish I could have said that," remark.

I am unfamiliar with that use, and I didn't know we were friends.

One of the great things about a forum context is that you can assign tone, inflection and all the other secondary features of conversation as you see fit.
Despite this, some people like being obvious so they tag smileys on everything just so no one notices how irrelevant their comments actually are.

So if I cast invisibility on all these off topic posts the admins won't notice the gap between Mercer and Me, eh?

<casts Improved Invisibility Force 6>

Considering I count 10 on-topic posts between Mercer's last entry and your above, it isn't anywhere near as bad as you make it out to be.

And since I cast it on off topic threads, does that mean the one Fortune added disappeared too? I can't tell because I resisted the spell. Not that it will matter, Pistons has Spell Defense dice up the wazoo.

You can't target spells over the Matrix, anyway.

Wait a second, are you saying that we're not all in a room talking over tea and that this is some kind of simulated reality where magic doesn't work! How can we escape this prison!?